Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> More to the point, the utility of the patch remains unproven.
>> We are not in the habit of adding OS dependencies on speculation.
> He ran tests, though it is speculation because non-caching is a pretty
> hard thing to find a benefit from except under low memory situations.
Well, the tests (a) didn't show any particularly good speedup, and
(b) were not on the platforms that this is speculated to be useful on
(ie, those without O_DIRECT).
I really don't think that an adequate case has been made for adding
a new OS dependency.
regards, tom lane
